This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

Originally Posted by AJiveMan

Actually, local government has final say, Clarke County closed the land to grazing. Bundy dosen't have a legal leg on which to stand upon. In essence what you're saying in this post is that state law takes precedence over local laws. And this is Bundy's defense.

State laws do take precedence over local law. What Bundy unsuccessfully argued was that State law takes precedence over Federal law.

Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

Originally Posted by Napoleon

State laws do take precedence over local law. What Bundy unsuccessfully argued was that State law takes precedence over Federal law.

I'm thinking that would depend upon which state we're talking about. In my state, in my village, there are local laws and ordinances that people must abide by, which are not even state laws. So, I sort of disagree with your statement pertaining to state precedence over local. The only way I know of this is from dealing with repeat problem neighbors blasting their music which rattles windows, and having drinking parties on private property.

In fact, I had one neighbor attempt to turn his yard into a barnyard, rabbits, roosters, etc.. While I reside in a semi-rural setting, certain animals cannot be harbored in this village, the village has strict laws governing wildlife harboring, while the state doesn't have laws that say you cannot have roosters in your backyard, they leave those laws and regulations up to localized authority.

Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

Originally Posted by AJiveMan

I'm thinking that would depend upon which state we're talking about. In my state, in my village, there are local laws and ordinances that people must abide by, which are not even state laws. So, I sort of disagree with your statement pertaining to state precedence over local. The only way I know of this is from dealing with repeat problem neighbors blasting their music which rattles windows, and having drinking parties on private property.

In fact, I had one neighbor attempt to turn his yard into a barnyard, rabbits, roosters, etc.. While I reside in a semi-rural setting, certain animals cannot be harbored in this village, the village has strict laws governing wildlife harboring, while the state doesn't have laws that say you cannot have roosters in your backyard, they leave those laws and regulations up to localized authority.

you may have misunderstood his point
you are correct, if there is no provision in state or federal law, then the local laws are in effect
however, if the local law is not in agreement with state law, then state law trumps local law
similarly, if the state and feds disagree, the federal laws trump state laws
and in the federal sector, the hierarchy places laws above regulations, and regulations above standard operating procedures
that is sometimes found necessary to know when it is realized that a regulation (or SOP) disagrees with the underlying law (or regulation)

we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it​[

... Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country. You have to stand proudly for the national anthem ... ~ tRump

Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

Originally Posted by Kyle LaValliere

That interpretation is a bit of a stretch. They want rational negotiations with the government, and must operate within the law, but I don't see anywhere where they think they can achieve any satisfaction. This is the classic "the system sucks but what the hell are we gonna do?" defeatism that has brought us to having more regulations, crony protectionism, and useless laws, and a bigger federal budget than any time in history. Working within the system is just bringing faster and faster losses.

Thumbing your nose at established laws isnt going to get anyone anywhere except arrested or fined. The Nevada Cattleman's Association released a statement and quite clearly voiced their official position. I didnt stretch **** dude, its all there in black and white perhaps you should read it instead of falling all over yourself to assert your ideology, that I personally care nothing about.

Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

Originally Posted by j-mac

As I have already said, bundy needs to pay his fees. But at the point of a gun??

At this point what are the government's options? Twenty years of using the 'system' has gained nothing from Bundy. He was the one who threatened retribution well before armed BLM agents showed up in the area.

“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

Lots of "deadbeats" in this country don't have swat show up for payment.

The BLM did not show up with guns asking for a payment. Please give a link that shows that the BLM was asking for payment at gun point.

What the BLM was doing was removing illegal cattle that were grazing public lands that the owner of said cattle had no right to do. The Bundy"s had publicly made anti-BLM and anti-American statements in the past where they implied that they would use force to keep their cattle on public grazing land.

What do you suppose would have happened had just a few BLM agents had shown up with the contracted crew to remove the cattle? I suspect that the Bundy's would have showed up with their guns and would have stopped the removal of the cattle at gun point. Oh wait the Bundy"s did show up and stop the removal of the cattle at gun point.

The Bundy"s never looked intimidated by the BLM they continued to act like dicks despite the amount of firepower during the standoff. I mean when the Bundy"s threatened a "range war" they confirmed the need of armed BLM agents needed on site during the removal of the illegal cattle.

I view this situation much like illegal immigration, people can make all the excuses that they want but the cattle are on public grazing land illegally. What part of ILLEGAL do people not understand? Cliven Bundy is a deadbeat either way and should be forced to pay his damn fines. Cliven made the decision to stop paying his grazing fees. He made his bed and is now laying in it.